물품대금
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 25,747,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from July 9, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
1. The facts and progress of the case;
A. The Plaintiff is a dental technician, and the Defendant is a dentist who operates dental services in Busan-gu C.
B. The Plaintiff continuously produced and supplied dental supplementary appliances, etc. to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 25,747,000 out of the supply price, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence
2. The following facts are revealed according to the facts without dispute over judgment, the entries in Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings:
In other words, around April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and presented to the Defendant a transaction book stating the details of supply of dental appliances and the amount of unpaid supply.
On March 20, 2015, the last page of the transaction is stating that "the balance of the supply price unpaid as of March 20, 2015 is KRW 45,747,00,00, and the following is stating that "the balance of the supply price unpaid as of March 20, 2015 is KRW 2,00,000 (loan), 25,747,000."
After confirming the above contents, the defendant entered his name immediately below and signed it.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both merchants who have engaged in a long-term transaction. If there are circumstances, the Defendant signed the above signature to determine the amount of the supplied price between the Defendant based on April 28, 2015 as KRW 25,747,000.
In reference, this is the amount after the defendant deducted 20,000,000 won (the fact that there is no dispute, and the statement of Eul evidence 1) that was loaned by DDR on April 28, 2015 as the plaintiff's introduction and remitted to the plaintiff's side.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should specify the occurrence details of the unpaid supply price, as he signed without properly examining whether the above amount is a legitimate amount or not.
However, as long as the unpaid amount has been determined by the Defendant’s signature, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to clarify the details of the occurrence. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion.